PDA

View Full Version : The cowardice of Downing Street


ORAC
7th Aug 2009, 07:05
The Times: The cowardice of Downing Street (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6742154.ece)

The case of the “suppressed” defence procurement report tells us much about Gordon Brown’s Government. None of it good.

It should come as little surprise that the Government is refusing to publish a report telling inconvenient truths. Downing Street has a bit of previous in this department, after all. But its behaviour has been particularly brazen.

The background is that Bernard Gray, a former Ministry of Defence adviser, was commissioned by John Hutton, Defence Secretary at the time, to lead a review of the way the MoD buys equipment. According to defence industry executives, the final version was delivered to senior MoD officials in the first week of July and was due to be published on July 15.

When it failed to appear, the government spinners’ first response was that it wasn’t finished, which was patently untrue. Now the line is that the report is to be used as part of the Government’s plans for a strategic defence review, to be held after next year’s election.

That Mr Hutton twice made a commitment to the House of Commons that the report would be published this year seems to have been conveniently forgotten. At least, forgotten by Downing Street. The MoD appears to have been willing for it to be published, which may explain why some of its findings have now been leaked.

Defence industry executives briefed on the report say it is no surprise that Downing Street is nervous. It presents a devastating critique of procurement processes that waste an estimated £2 billion a year. It also makes it chillingly clear that huge cuts in planned spending are inevitable, with very serious consequences for one of Britain’s biggest industries.

The problem is that the military chiefs want everything they see in the sweet shop and the officials and politicians can’t say no. When they run out of money, as they always do, orders are merely postponed, which raises costs and stores up more problems. In the case of the recently postponed aircraft carriers, which were clearly unaffordable when first ordered, the extra cost was £1 billion.

It has all got so out of hand that the report suggests the current programme is 50 per cent more than the MoD could afford, even if its budget was maintained in real terms.

The dysfunctional process has badly damaged the industry. The escalating cost of old programmes has squeezed the budget for new systems, which are the ones with export potential.

Cuts are inevitable. How they are implemented will be hugely important to Britain’s Armed Forces and the defence industry. There will be very tough choices requiring real political courage. But don’t hold your breath. This government doesn’t even have the courage to publish a report.

Der absolute Hammer
7th Aug 2009, 07:13
I just finished reading that also in todays newspaper.
One problem is that the curtailment of defence spending is going to implode very seriously on the work force in the British arms industry. This is something which, quite understandably, HMG would prefer to keep in the dark untila fter the elction when it can be blamed on someone else. the Conservatives should pounce on this report and flag it furiosuly-but they probably won't. They really do need to ungest a little more rabble rousing backbone, that lot do.
The problem of course starts with the Navy - when doesn't it? For Britian to have its own aircraft carriers is tactically debatable and probably more rooted in the old labour terror of the ship construction industry than anything else. Why have the dole if it is going to cost more to keep men in jobs than to have them out of work?

ORAC
7th Aug 2009, 07:37
It is, of course, written from the point of view of the industry. Too wit, that the purpose of the Defence budget is to fund the industry to make new products that it can see abroad.

From that point of view actually having to deliver on time and on cost to the UK services is a bit of a nuisance.

If, however, you assume the role of the Defence budget is to equip the services to fight the wars the government gets us involved in, then it would be far cheaper, on many occasions, to buy off the shelf from a US or other company where the development has been paid for elsewhere.

The trade off between the two is whether you are more interested in keeping jobs in factories and docks in your constituency or prpoperly equipping the armed forces to do the job properly with minimum casualties.

Politicians, of all parties, being what they are, the priority is always the first, not the second.

LFFC
7th Aug 2009, 13:32
Nick Robinson has posted the slides on his blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/). Here's the final one:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/gray_slide12.jpg

Riskman
7th Aug 2009, 22:01
From the same blog;
UPDATE 2030: The MOD has just sent us this statement:
"We can confirm that these slides have not been produced by Bernard Gray or by the Ministry of Defence and that they do not offer an accurate summary of Bernard's draft report. "
The BBC cannot reveal the origin of the slides, but sources have again today told us that the information they contain does indeed reflect views contained within the report


There are some obvious typo' and terminological mistakes in the slides which make me question its authenticity e.g. Major Gate, 'to constraint it..', 'UK's sees itself'.

Some of the points in the slide posted here are statements of the obvious and some have the flavour of being ill-informed. Some of what has appeared so far may well be in the final report, however I think what we have seen to date is crap generated by a wind-up merchant. I would be more inclined to give it credence if it had appeared somewhere other than the Baghdad Broadcasting Company first.

R

Melchett01
8th Aug 2009, 09:31
Riskman - I wouldn't base an assessment as to authenticity purely on the standard of English used. It could be reporting from other sources, in which case it may be accurate but just poorly expressed.

Alternatively, it could just be the generally poor standards of English in use these days, and that includes amongst senior officers and executives. Quite frankly, I have seen reports written by senior officers in various HQs that look like they were written by my neighbour's 8 year old son in terms of syntax and grammar.

Riskman
8th Aug 2009, 17:33
Your point is a fair one, Melchett, however it's not just the typo's.

In the slide shown above I agree with # 5.
#10 is totally baffling because MOD/DE&S are awash with accountants, they get paid very well but they don't do commercial stuff (letting contracts).
#12 wouldn't be an issue if the threat (decision possibly) to privatise that function wasn't made, and then reversed after the cost-engineers had jumped ship.
I won't go on. I await 'something' and it won't be a fun read.

Best regards

R

Not_a_boffin
8th Aug 2009, 18:29
1. is utterly insane! A review every 18 months? Those within MB and DE&S will be well aware of just how much nause each change of SAG scenario assumptions can cause in terms of justifying a requirement and consequent new OA studies required. MARS IPT spent best part of six years chasing a changing requirement to buy a fleet tanker FFS! Only to have the programme reprofiled and deferred in the midst of a shipbuilding recession, with yards giving build slots away! Every 5 years might just about be sensible, but even then, is it sustainable given the length of time it takes to get approval, design and procure any bit of kit that is vaguely complex?

2. Last time I looked, SDR was exactly that - strategic, top down and looking properly at the future. That it did not foresee a prolonged high-intensity COIN campaign does not invalidate it. The prolonged COIN campaign (and for example specifically ML helicopters) is causing problems only in that the original SDR was never fully funded by Cyclops and that the knock-on effects of that underfunding are evident everywhere.

3. Sounds like the ES&P line to me. Or are the endless rebalancing/reprofiling exercises my imagination? The cost inflation they cause isn't though......

5 is spot-on.

6. WTF is the IAB? Or the DMB for that matter?

12. Very true. But even the ones who "jumped ship" were operating within a fog of unknowns. The best thing MoD could do is develop a simple costing tool for the "kit" based on clear open-source assumptions. The "intangibles" so often hidden in project management / integration / development could then be exposed and addressed. At the minute, it's too easy to get bogged down in the detail of the widget rather than identify costs of processes annd indecision.

Dockers
10th Aug 2009, 09:09
IAB used to be Investment Appraisal Board. DMB is the Defence Management Board.

Not_a_boffin
10th Aug 2009, 09:23
Correct. The point being aren't these exactly the senior management board(s) that the alleged report suggests is missing.....